Sermchief v. Gonzales case brief summary
660 S.W.2d 683 (1983)
CASE FACTS
The Board alleged that the nurses were guilty of unauthorized practice of medicine, pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. § 334.010 (1978), and that the physicians were guilty of aiding and abetting such unauthorized practice. The nurses, employed by a health agency, were performing duties related to family planning, obstetrics, and gynecology, under standing orders and protocols approved by the physicians, also employees of the agency. The nurses and physicians sought to enjoin the Board from enforcing § 334.010 against them and to find that they were performing duties authorized under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 335.016.8 (1978).
DISCUSSION and HOLDING
CONCLUSION
The court reversed and remanded with instructions for the trial court to enter judgment in favor of the nurses and physicians.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
660 S.W.2d 683 (1983)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellants, nurses and
physicians, sought review of a decision of the Circuit Court of St.
Louis County (Missouri), which granted judgment in favor of
respondents, members and officer of the Missouri State Board of
Registration for the Healing Arts (Board), in the nurses and
physicians' petition for a declaratory judgment and injunction to
determine whether the nurses' conduct was authorized under Mo.
Rev. Stat. § 335.016.8 (1978).CASE FACTS
The Board alleged that the nurses were guilty of unauthorized practice of medicine, pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. § 334.010 (1978), and that the physicians were guilty of aiding and abetting such unauthorized practice. The nurses, employed by a health agency, were performing duties related to family planning, obstetrics, and gynecology, under standing orders and protocols approved by the physicians, also employees of the agency. The nurses and physicians sought to enjoin the Board from enforcing § 334.010 against them and to find that they were performing duties authorized under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 335.016.8 (1978).
DISCUSSION and HOLDING
- The court held:
- 1) by § 335.016.8, the legislature expanded the definition of professional nurses and eliminated the need for direct supervision, so long as responsibilities were consistent with specialized education and skill;
- 2) the nurses' actions fell within the legislative standard and were performed pursuant to clearly established protocols;
- 3) there was nothing in the statute to restrict the nurses' continued use of such practices; and
- 4) because the nurses' actions were authorized by § 335.016.8, the actions did not constitute the unauthorized practice of medicine.
CONCLUSION
The court reversed and remanded with instructions for the trial court to enter judgment in favor of the nurses and physicians.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment